The Situation and Choice Made Clear

https://rmx.news/article/macron-rejects-self-defense-after-a-farmer-kills-a-burglar-who-broke-into-his-home/
‘I am opposed to self-defense’ – Macron says farmer had no right to kill a burglar who broke into his home

This is as clear as the distinction between individual liberty/self-ownership and collectivism – i.e., enforced association with a ‘group’, and the idea that the group owns the individuals thought to comprise it, or has the controlling interest, at least – can be made.

Macron’s position means that someone, and in this case, also that someone’s child, being actively trespassed against and threatened, property and person(s), will be considered criminally in the wrong for defending himself and his child in the moment against the threat, and should simply submit to the will of the intruders if police help cannot be called in time to intervene, or perhaps called at all. If they are harmed or killed, so be it. Bad luck for them, and maybe next time the police will get there in time to avert the same outcome, but at least the group will feel ‘safe’ knowing that the (law abiding) citizenry is disarmed. Meaning, I guess, that in the event someone was harmed or killed in such a moment, that the people of the ‘group’ – none of whom are present or in any danger – would presumably feel safer (if those harmed were among the people being intruded upon, rather than the intruders), knowing that, at least, the victim wasn’t armed, too.

This is where ‘the social contract’ and ideas of the general welfare and the greater good always lead, with the conceptual welfare of the group – musn’t let things become the ‘Wild West’ (with defending oneself from violence, in the moment, as opposed to pre-meditated vigilante retribution after the fact, being considered a Wild West feature) – deemed paramount to an actual and current threat being faced by a real physical person and his child, and this is a simple enough scenario for anyone to contemplate and make a choice about. It relates to nearly everything in human society.

• There is a moral component – which is enough for this writer by itself – that being the question of whether each person can be said to own his or her own life and person (body). I decided long ago that this is obviously correct and reasonable, an unavoidable conclusion. Therefore, no permission from the group is required to defend oneself, and it can never be made illegal to do so.

• There is also a practical component, and which should be equally obvious, that being that the police are not normally able to and cannot be expected to reach crime scenes in progress in order to intervene in time to save the targets of crimes and violence, and that, further, it may not even be possible to contact the police at such a moment, for any number of reasons.

For both reasons, the notion that self-defense be considered immoral and made illegal is completely absurd, and a kind of slightly veiled evil cloaked in a pseudo-noble concern for the group’s (conceptual) welfare, while completely dismissing the welfare of the real persons under actual threat. Someone not being able to legally defend themself against intrusion and actual, threatened or implied coming violence is preposterously unreasonable, and the ‘group’, to the extent that it can even be said to exist, is not at all threatened or undermined by such self-defense by a real person. On the contrary, the prospects and options for others in similar situations are only enhanced. In any case, the intruders’ lives and welfare were forfeit the moment they stepped onto his property, for being there uninvited with the intent they brought with them.

If, after considering this very simple scenario and choice, one finds oneself in agreement with Macron, that it should be illegal to defend oneself (that means completely; with enough force to end the threat, lethal potential force versus same if necessary), then to those people I would say that your awareness of history is either feeble or sequestered, on hold, and that there’s something fundamentally broken about both your moral compass and your practical reasoning. Or you have a spiritual or psychological pathology.

There is no defending this position. Macron and his outlook are a clear and present danger to free, peaceful people of goodwill. It’s not his call. The defense of your life is not Macron’s (or anyone else’s) call.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Leave the field below empty!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.